by David Clendon
When we asked the Government last year how they would cope with a catastrophic oil leak from deep sea drilling, they proudly touted 400 Maritime NZ responders (over and over).
Post the Rena, it is clear that we don’t have the capacity to respond, and yet they still aren’t worried. The Prime Minister thinks a deep sea oil well 2,000 metres below the sea is a completely unrelated issue.
The Government prefers to rely on blind optimism, a strong faith in as yet unproven technology, and the private sector’s alleged willingness and ability to police itself. The companies that will drill for oil in New Zealand are the best in the world, they will have the best technology (well, almost), and we can rest assured no accidents will happen – says the Government. (And we’ll be rich, so why worry?)
While the US has certainly bowed to pressure from oil companies, even before the Gulf has fully recovered, Europe recognises the risk and has just announced a proposal for tough new safety laws.
The European Commission has proposed the introduction of a tough, new set of safety rules to reduce the risk of pollution from oil and gas rigs.
According to environment chiefs, the likelihood of a major offshore accident in European waters remains “unacceptably high”.
However, the European Greens, like us, realise that legislation really isn’t going to do anything to plug a leak. So, until the industry has proven technology, we don’t think it’s worth the risk.
Rebecca Harms, president of the Greens group in the European Parliament, said the new draft law was “certainly an improvement”, but the Commission should be going further.
“Drilling in environmentally sensitive areas like the Arctic should be banned,” she said in a statement.
The EU is realising how vulnerable these rigs are to accident, and the dire environmental and economic consequences of a spill, so they are trying to ‘retrofit’ tougher regulations. We still have the luxury of choice, and should choose to prohibit the development of any deep water drilling, given the very high risk and relatively low return.
Why risk our precious environment, when we have much better opportunities to create a richer New Zealand?
Published in Environment & Resource Management | Featured by David Clendon on Fri, October 28th, 2011
Tags: deep sea drilling, EU, green jobs, regulation
More posts by David Clendon | more about David Clendon
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Companies here are licensed. They have to have emergency response plans. They have external verifiers. There is a new petroleum inspectorate (well, a reinvigorated one). They already have to submit safety cases to the Department of Labour.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
With regard to the Rena accident I note ,to date, that most of the oil has been removed fron the wreck,despit three bouts of bad weather. Very little oil has washed up on the beachs and these are now clean. A lot of experince has benn gained. This may prove to be a blessing “quite effectivly” disguised.
The most damaging oil spills have come from wrecked ships not drilling platforms. Have we considered how much less oil will be transported, in New Zealand waters, by tanker ship if an off shore supply is found? The risk of this type of accident would be greatly reduced.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Yeah. The Government and MNZ have been handed a hospital pass. By a continued period of good weather and the skill and courage of the people on the ground. in no way does that excuse the incompetence, lack of preparedness and lack of professionalism of those at the top.
DCM. I agree with your first paragraph. as for your second. Duh??
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Ships can get themselves in very difficult places when they are wrecked ie the Exxon Valdex which was by far the most damaging oil spill. the Gulf of mexico (a far larger spill from a oil well) has largly recovered. The beaches are clean, sea food eatable. The smaller Exxon Valdex spill was more damaging because of where it happened.
My point is an off shore well, piped ashore reduces the risks of these accidents.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
How are you going to pipe ashore a deep water well?
Google oil pipeline breakages if you think a pipeline is safer.
Even Maui B oil is tankered ashore from a FPSO.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
Maui B oil ceased in 2006. It was not “tankered ashore”, it was tankered to market. Regardless, offloading from the FPSO to a tanker was not done because it was deemed to be ‘unsafe’ to pipe it to shore. Gas and condensate from Maui B and Maui A have been piped ashore for > 30 years, with no issues. Oil & gas from deep water wells are piped ashore all over the world. Poorly maintained pipeline may leak (actually sabotage is a major cause of leaks), I guess in the same manner as poorly maintained or operated ships may run around.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
“Gas and condensate from Maui B and Maui A have been piped ashore for > 30 years, with no issues”.
You think!
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
Do you have any information or evidence to the contrary?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Yes I have, but I may need a job with them again.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
I’m sorry, but I’m not going to accept a “nudge-nudge, wink-wink trust-me; I’ve got inside knowledge” on this.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
That’s entirely up to you.
Like or Dislike:
2 
7 (-5)
Yes I have, but I may need a job with them again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes I have
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)